DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form (emphasis added) and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is currently one run-on sentence. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 2, the first line should be amended to end with a colon and line 3 should be amended to recite --sections; and--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer side surface" in lines 4-5. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the outer edge" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Consequently, claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite since they require all the limitations of rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Taneja (US 9,433,189 B2), alone.
Referring to claim 1: Taneja teaches a tabbed lid opening hand for use in an opening lid operation for removing a tabbed lid, which has a lid main body (LID) that closes a circular shaped opening section of a container (CAN) and a tab (TAB) that is connected to the lid main body and that is disposed along the outer side surface of the container, from the opening section, the tabbed lid opening hand comprising:
a base section that is attached to a robot arm (FA, UA);
two claw sections (GRIPPER) that are supported by the base section and that approach and separate from each other (column 5, lines 14-15); and
a hook (HK) that is disposed with its tip end section facing in a direction that is configured to engage with the tab (FIG. 5).
Taneja does not specifically teach a hook that is disposed with its tip end section facing in a direction intersecting the approach and separation directions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tip end section of the hook taught by Taneja to be facing in a direction intersecting the approach and separation directions of the claw sections with a reasonable expectation of success since the robot arm taught by Taneja can move in essentially any direction to hook the tab, and reconfiguring the orientation of the hook is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed tip end section was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Referring to claim 2: Taneja teaches the claw sections have claw tip end sections and base end sections (Figs. 3 and 5). Taneja does not specifically teach a width of the claw sections in a radial direction of the opening section gradually increases from the claw tip end sections toward the base end sections. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the width of the claw section taught by Taneja to gradually increase from the claw tip end sections toward the base end sections in a radial direction of the opening section with a reasonable expectation of success because the configuration of the claimed width is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed width was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Referring to claim 5: Taneja teaches a disengagement prevention section (the upper gripper in Figs. 3 and 5 [without the hook]) that is supported by the base section and that is configured to approach and separate from the hook.
Referring to claim 6: Taneja teaches a disengagement prevention drive section (GM) that drives the disengagement prevention section so that it approaches and separates from the hook.
Referring to claim 7: Taneja teaches the claw sections have rotation bodies having rotation axes (where the claw sections pivot during opening and closing; column 5, lines 14-15) that are parallel to a central axis of the container.
Referring to claim 8: Taneja teaches a claw opening and closing section (GM) that drives the claw sections to open and close.
Referring to claim 9: Taneja teaches a tabbed lid opening system, comprising:
a robot with a robot arm (UA, FA; see Summary of the Invention - col. 2-3), and
a tabbed lid opening hand according to claim 1 (see above), which is attached to the robot arm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Taneja teaches a method of removing a tabbed lid, which has a lid main body (LID) that closes a circular shaped opening section of a container (CAN) and a tab (TAB) that is connected to the lid main body and that is disposed along an outer side surface of the container, from the opening section by an automatic machine, the automatic machine having a claw section (GRIPPER), a tab holding section (HK), and a robot arm (UA, FA) that moves the tab holding section relative to the container, the method of opening the tabbed lid comprising:
holding the tab by the tab holding section (FIG. 5); and
removing the tabbed lid from the container by the robot arm by moving the tab holding section, which is holding the tab, relative to the container (FIG. 5).
Taneja does not specifically teach a method of opening the tabbed lid comprising extending a distance between the container and the tab by inserting the claw section between the container and the tab along a tangential direction, assuming that the tangential direction is a direction parallel to a tangential line of the outer edge of the opening section.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Handique et al. (US 11,273,439 B2) teaches a system comprising a robot and a lid opening tool 145 (Figs. 3A-3C). Taneja et al. (US 9,877,462 B2) also teaches a system comprising a robot and a lid opening tool (Figs. 7-9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Catherine Loikith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
14 September 2026
Prosecution Insights